Wellscould, at least, tell a convincing lie; as he did in War of the Worlds

Gorski’d likely #fail as his evil half-brother, “H.G. #Fails”, in World War Peed, and probably didn’t think his readers would get the double-entendre’

Gorski is more famouser for pie in the sky

He’ll never be likened to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, or receive a “Mark Twain Award”

He’s an unlicensed Hackademic Quackademic who believes that bad press is good press, any press is good press

Gorski is the “Guy” who felt he was Scroogled by Google, when he and his public relations (P.R.) team; which reside in the ‎hyperthalamus section of his brain, decided on 12/5/2012 to go pure pseudononsense pseudononscience:

Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies [1]

wherein he quoted

Dr Burzynski:

“I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy”

======================================Gorski:

“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”

“I couldn’t find it on PubMed”

“His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a “genetic disease” or “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” and everything to do with antineoplastons”

“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary”
new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar”

“I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. ”

“There’s a term called “oncogene,” which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer”======================================

======================================Gorski would have the reader suspend belief, and believe that he’s notsmarter than a fifth-grader; which is entirely plausible

That he could not do a search on the words:

antineoplastons
oncogenes
Burzynski

and find anything whatsoever======================================

======================================
and that he did not have the cranial capacity to access the Burzynski Clinic web-site’s Scientific Publications page:======================================

======================================
The United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA) did NOT have any problem finding it======================================

Burzynskinever explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons======================================

======================================
A statement which I showed to be incorrect, by pointing out at least 18 different Burzynskiscientific publications which did what Gorski claimed they did NOT [11-12]======================================

======================================
When Dr. David H. Gorski said:
——————————————————————“Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”–11/2/2012

“I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”–2/18/2013

“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”–5/8/2013
——————————————————————
exactly what did he mean by “pored over,” “read,” and “searched”?

Some Bill Clintonesque definition designed to try and stump anyone who’s not smarter than a fifth-grader ?

(“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”)

You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth-grader to understand that ifDr. Gorski actually did what he said he did, that he should have been able to conclude without any hint of doubt, thatBurzynskiexplains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons

Where was your head ?

Was your head in Mississippi?

Was your head like a hole ?

Or was your head so far up your “Show Me State” pal Robert J.(don’t call me “Bobby”)Bob (I’m not a doctor, I just pretend like I’m one on the otherburzynskipatientgroup (TOBPG) and houstoncancerquack) blatherskite Blatherskitewicz(known liar) Blaskiewicz’s AstroTurf campaign, that you couldn’t see what you were not doing ?

This is a guywho has been funded by:

a) the Department of Defense(DOD)

b) the NIH (National Institutes of Health)

c) the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO

and

d) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

and this is the kind of supposed “Science-Based Medicine”(SBM)“results” he produces ?

This guy is proclaimed as:

“a prolific essayist and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a highly-respected blog that exposes non-scientific research and practices”

A “highly-respected blog”?

really ?

Really ??

REALLY ???

You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me !!!

“For the last ten years, he has been a major voice — as himself and pseudonymously — for science-based medicine”

You mean that “Orac”Hack ?

“Dr Gorski also runs an active research laboratory at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute”

Research ?

Is it similar to his “research” which I exposed here?

And yet, after showcasing such “brillianot” research skilz, Tuesday, 7/30/2013, Dr. Gorski was appointed / named program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines[13]

He “will be involved in many aspects of the quality initiative”

Let’s hope that one of those aspects is NOT the “research” one

“Dr. Gorski has the breadth and depth of knowledge to effectively lead our very strong Breast Multidisciplinary Team,” said Dr. Bepler

“I have every confidence that Dr. Gorski will continue this very high standard of care.”

Perhaps Dr. Bepler is out-of-touch with reality when it comes to Gorski’s “research” and “standard of care” abilities

I wonder how long it is before his effort at infiltrating evidence-based guidelines with his Science-Based Medicine, raises its ugly hypocritical head ?

During the Holidays, maybe Dr. Gorski will have time to celebrate his promotion with his wife with an evening out, and before he pops the surprise to her about his retirement plans for Castro’s Cuba, he can take her by the hands, stare into her eyes with his big brown eyes; they have to be brown, right (?), because he’s so full of “it,” (?) and tell her these heart-warming words:

Darling, I know, that you know, that what I do brings home the bacon, and so it makes a difference in Michigan

In fact, I wanted to let you know how much of a difference I’m helping to make

1997 thru 2001, African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 in Michigan; as reported in the American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2005-2006, listed Michigan as the state tied with the 20 most breast cancer cases per 100,000, with 36.2

I’m proud to announce that for the last 2 reporting periods (2011-2014), covering 2003 thru 2009, Michigan is no longer tied with the state with the 20 most cases of breast cancer per 100,000

Michiganis now the state with the 11th most cases of breast cancer in African American women, which rose .5 from 33.8 to 34.3 over the last 2 reporting periods

And that’s not all

African American womenbreast cancer incidences inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 119.0, 2000 thru 2004 as reported in the 2007-2008 report, up .4 to 119.4, 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

Additionally, African American womenbreast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 33.8 for 2003 thru 2007, as reported for 2011-2012, up .5 to 34.3 for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014

And furthermore, breast cancer incidences in Michigan, per 100,000, were 119.4 for African American women for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, and 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010 for white women, reported 2013-2014

And also, the breast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, was 34.3 forAfrican American women 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, 11.5 more than the 22.8 for white women for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

And I thought you’d be very pleased to know that the estimated new breast cancer cases in women inMichigan, rose from 6,120 in 2008, to 8,140 in 2013

An increase of 2,010

And, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated new breast cancer cases, to the 8th

And as if that were not enough great news for you, the estimated breast cancer deaths in women inMichigan, rose from 1,350 in 2004, to an additional 10 more women, 1,360 in 2013

And just like with the estimated new women breast cancer cases, again, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated breast cancer deaths, to the 8th

And last, but certainly not least, Michigan cancer death rates dropped from 25.8 in 2008, 1.8 to 24.0 in 2013

However, Michiganwent from being the state tied with the 18th most cancer cases per 100,000, to the state tied with the 11th most

But don’t worry honey

If you’re white like me, because you’re in Michigan, the breast cancer incidence for you per 100,000, went from 133.9 for 1998 thru 2002, as reported 2005-2006, down 15.2 to 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

And, even better, white death rates in Michigan per 100,000, dropped from 27.3 for 1996 thru 2000, as reported 2003-2004, 4.5 to 22.8 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014

And best of all, sweetie, if you do get breast cancer and you’re white, you have a 9% better 5-year overall survival rate (69% – whites / 60% – African Americans, and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites)

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that life expectancy is lower forAfrican Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)

If that’s not job security for me, I don’t know what is

The mistake that Gorski made is that he did not take into account that this is not the age of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, etc

In this day and age, people canNOT get away with adopting lying as a part of a strategy, because the NSA is watching, and so are We, the People

Remain calm

Germans subjugated themselves to Hitler, the Soviets, Stalin, Italians, Mussolini, Cubans to Castro, and none of them were worth subjugating oneself to

None of them were worth being put on a pedestal

None of them were greater than you or I

Gorski is NOT the greater good

Gorski has a degree in “B.S.” from the University of Michigan

I do not have a “B.S.” degree

I’m the one NOT full of“B.S.”

Now that sounds like a story ripe for a journalistic investigation

So, I guess that means Bob Blaskiewicz’s fave “journalist,” Liz Szabo, and USA TODAY, are out of the running for this type of “reporting”

But look on the bright side:

“In his new role, he will work with the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D., who is the MiBOQI program director, as well as assistant dean for Research and professor of Internal Medicine/Hematology-Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School”

Maybe “the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D.” will be GorskGeeks“checks and balances”======================================“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”======================================http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================

======================================Such risible hyperbole would induce fits of laughter in me if it weren’t such a complete lie======================================
I’m just glad dad got outta Kellogg country while he could
——————————————————————P.S.: Per Dr. David H. Gorski, anything which might erroneously be perceived as a lie about Burzynski, is NOT anything wrong, per Wayne State University[14]======================================

David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., is a racist and a natural born killer

That’s right !

Dr. Gorski hates #cancer

He’s a bigot when it comes to breast cancer

Gorski sleeps, breathes, and blogs about breast cancer

He is an academicsurgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery(Surgical Oncology Attending) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michiganspecializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as team leader for the Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team(MDT) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Co-Chair, Cancer Committee, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, medical director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center(2010-present), Co-Leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program, and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer(ACS CoC) Cancer Liaison Physician as well as Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine; Faculty (2008-present), and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University, MiBOQI project director(clinical champion) for Karmanos Cancer Center, site project director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a partnership between Karmanos and the University of Michigan, the new program co-director(Co-Medical Director) of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines, serves as the co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Center and is co-leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program at Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, a Wayne State University Physician Group surgeon and chief of the Section of Breast Surgery(Breast Surgery Section) for the Wayne State University School of Medicine (2009-present), serves as an associate professor of surgery and Oncology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, and Treasurer and on the Board of Directors, and also serves the Institute for Science in Medicine as head of its childhood immunization committee

Prior to joining Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, was an associate professor of surgery at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, as well as a member of the Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.

1984 – Graduation with Honors and High Distinction in Chemistry

1994 – MetroHealth Medical Center Resident Research

He attended the University of Michigan Medical School, received his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, medical degree (M.D.) from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Chicago Fellowship, Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship, General Surgery, Case Western: Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency, General Surgery, and received his Ph.D. in cellular physiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Managing Editor of the Science-Based Medicine weblog, as well as a once-weekly contributor

SBM exists to take a skeptical, science-based view of medicine in general and in particular the infiltration of pseudoscientific practices into medicine, even in academic medical centers

These entities must have felt lucky to add a University of Michigan alum to their toolbox, a wolverine; a creature also known as a glutton or skunk bear

Who would doubt that Gorski would be a gluttonfor punishment when it comes to raising a big stink about breast cancer issues?

Surely he was aware: Detroit, Michigan; the most populous city in the state of Michigan, with a population of 701,475 (2012) (9,883,360 – Michigan), 575,321 (81.4%) being African American (Black); a little less than six times the national average (82.7% – 2010 / about 83% – 2012) (Michigan – 14.2% – 2010), 369,616 Females (52.7% – 2012 / 53% – 2010) (Michigan 50.9%)

No doubt he knew that the most recent American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, noted:
——————————————————————
• Studies have documented unequal receipt of prompt, high-quality treatment for African American women compared to white women

• African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective

• African Americans and other racial minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials, which makes it more difficult to assess efficacy of cancer therapies among different racial/ethnic groups

• African Americanshave highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in US for most cancers

• Racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women

• African American womenhave higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites

• African Americanscontinue to have lower 5-year survival overall:
69% – whites60% – African Americans
and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites

• Evidence aggressive tumor characteristics more common inAfrican American than white women
——————————————————————Gorskiworked tirelessly to address the problem, by appearing on TV, radio, Internet radio, in articles and on his blogs

Soon, the locals were remarking about the “Gorski Patient Group” web-site which was set up to display anecdotal stories of breast cancer patients who were “cured” by Gorski

Rather than address the BILLIONS of dollars in fines which Big Pharma racked up, and Pharma’s seeming dedication to getting members of the unwitting public, to take medications for symptoms which they were not approved for; and thus possibly experience adverse effects those drugs cause, Gorski chose to NOT comment about his goose that might lay the golden (parachute) nest egg

Instead, he tried the Tricky-Dickytrickle-down theory of Hackademic Mudicine(“Quackademic Medicine”); which did NOT work when Richard Milhous (“War on Cancer”) Nixon was told:

“There’s a cancer on the Presidency”

What Gorski seems hilariously oblivious to, is that his opprobrium; to turn a phrase, applies to him:
——————————————————————(.3:16)
——————————————————————
When he mentions:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were not, that are not supported by evidence”

he may as well be saying, in regards to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were, that are supported by evidence“

(the evidence that they do NOT work for everyone)
——————————————————————(.3:42)
——————————————————————
To use his own words, he seems:

“confused, at best”
——————————————————————(.4:45)
——————————————————————
He also displays:

There goes “Alternative Rock,” or the “alternative” to an attemptedGorskijoke: “happiness is a warm gun”

I’m somewhat surprised that Gorski has yet to classify antineoplastons as “Homeopathy: Ultra-diluted chemotherapy”
——————————————————————(28:15)
——————————————————————
But he does rant that rival Cleveland Clinic where he had his residency, has been infiltrated by the Q.M.
——————————————————————(39:10)
——————————————————————
And that his alma-mater, the University of Michigan has also queued in the “Quackademic” line
——————————————————————(44:00)
——————————————————————
He bemoans the mighty wolverine:

“Again my alma-mater”

“I hang my head in shame”
——————————————————————(44:10)
——————————————————————
And to add injury to insult, his “former employer,” UMDNJ(University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, has also been bitten by the Quackademic Duck

I’m sure Gorski will be able to formulate a usual factoid #fail for his #failure to “cure” cancer, vis-a-vis “Orac”, the literary Hack, braying in the wilderness and awaiting his Red Badge of Courage

Maybe “too many people copulating” in Detroit, or too many Louisiana hurricane Katrina survivors added to the sandbox

Is Gorski a racist?

That’s up to all the African American women in Detroit, Michigan, to decide

Maybe he’s just a really bad hypocrite

NOr, maybe he needs to spend less time on the “hypocuresy,” and more time on the “CURE”

Maybe the African American women of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States of America should ask Gorski:

What have you done for me lately ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————“And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise”
——————————————————————NO, Gorski, the United States’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that antineoplastons (ANPs) are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”

no matter how much YOU try to claim otherwise

What are you ?

A Saul Green closet communist who does NOT believe what the United States’ Federal Courtsrule ?

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“Indeed, it was a blatant ploy, as Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, acknowledged, referring to one of his clinical trials as a “joke” and the others as a way to make sure there was a constant supply of new cancer patients to the Burzynski Clinic“
——————————————————————

——————————————————————” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials“

“As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations”
——————————————————————GorskGeek, my citations, references, and / or links, beat your NON-citations, NON-references, and / or NON-links======================================AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
CANCER FACTS & FIGURES (2002-2014)======================================
2002_-_2003 – 1 of every 4 deaths
======================================Deaths – United States of America
——————————————————————2013 – almost 1,600 a day2002-2012☝1,500+ a day
——————————————————————Expected to Die – United States
——————————————————————2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008)2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005)2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
2002☝555,500
——————————————————————Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013👇273,430 (1,940 less than 2012)2012☝275,370 (3,850 more than 2011)
2011☝271,520 (1,230 more than 2010)
2010☝270,290 (490 more than 2009)
2009👇269,800 (1,730 less than 2008)2008☝271,530 (1,430 more than 2007)
2007👇270,100 (3,460 less than 2006)
2006👇273,560 (1,440 less than 2005)2005☝275,000 (2,190 more than 2004)
2004☝272,810 (2,210 more than 2003)
2003☝270,600 (3,300 more than 2002)
2002_-_267,300
——————————————————————Estimated cancer deaths – African Americans expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
2013👇64,645 – 22.6% (2013-2014)2011☝65,540 (About) (2011-2012)
2009☝63,360 (About) (2009-2010)
2007☝62,780 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————2013☝39,620 (14%) (110 more than 2012)
2012👇39,510 (14%) (10 less than 2011)
2011👇39,520 (15%) (320 less than 2010)
2010👇39,840 (15%) (330 less than 2009)
2009👇40,170 (15%) (310 less than 2008)2008☝40,480 (15%) (20 more than 2007)
2007👇40,460 (15%) (2007-2008) (510 less than 2006)2006☝40,970 (15%) (560 more than 2005)
2005☝40,410 (15%) (300 more than 2004)
2004☝40,110 (15%) (310 more than 2003)
2003☝39,800 (15%) (200 more than 2002)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
——————————————————————Estimated Deaths from Breast cancer expected to occur among African American women:
——————————————————————6,080☝2013 – 19% (2013-2014)
6,040☝2011 – 19% (2011-2012)
6,020☝2009 – 19% (2009-2010)
5,830☝2007 – 19% (2007-2008)
5,640☝(2005-2006)
5,640 – 1969-2002 – 18.4% – 2005 (2005-2006)======================================New Cancer Cases Expected to be diagnosed – USA
——————————————————————2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)
2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007)2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002☝1,284,900
——————————————————————Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
——————————————————————2013☝805,500 – (14,760 more than 2012)
2012☝790,740 – (16,370 more than 2011)
2011☝774,370 – (34,430 more than 2010)
2010☝739,940 – (26,720 more than 2009)
2009☝713,220 – (21,220 more than 2008)
2008☝692,000 – (13,940 more than 2007)
2007👇678,060 – (1,450 less than 2006)2006☝679,510 – (16,640 more than 2005)
2005👇662,870 – (5,600 less than 2004)2004☝668,470 – (9,670 more than 2003)
2003☝658,800 – (11,400 more than 2002)
2002_-_647,400
——————————————————————Estimated New invasive Breast Cancer Cases: (Women)
——————————————————————2013☝232,340 (29%) (5,470 more than 2012)
2012👇226,870 (29%) (11,610 less than 2011)2011☝238,480 (30%) (31,390 more than 2010)
2010☝207,090 (28%) (14,720 more than 2009)
2009☝192,370 (27%) (9,910 more than 2008)
2008☝182,460 (26%) (3,980 more than 2007)
2007👇178,480 (26%) (2007-2008) (34,440 less than 2006)2006☝212,920 (31%) (1,680 more than 2005)
2005👇211,240 (32%) (4,660 less than 2004)2004☝215,900 (32%) (4,600 more than 2003)
2003☝211,300 (32%) (7,800 more than 2002)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
——————————————————————Estimated new cases – new cancer cases expected to be diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————2013☝176,620 (2013-2014)
2011☝168,900 (About) (2011-2012)
2009👇150,090 (About) (2009-2010)2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007_-_152,900 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur:
——————————————————————64,640☝(2013) (1,340 more than 2012)
63,300☝(2012) (5,650 more than 2011)
57,650☝(2011) (3,640 more than 2010)
54,010👇(2010) (8,270 less than 2009)
62,280👇(2009) (5,490 less than 2008)67,770☝(2008) (5,740 more than 2007-2008)
62,030☝(2007-2008) (50 more than 2006)
61,980☝(2006) (3,490 more than 2005-2006)
58,490👇(2005-2006) (900 less than 2004)59,390☝(2004) (3,690 more than 2003)
55,700☝(2003) (1,400 more than 2002)
54,300☝(2002)
——————————————————————Estimated New Cancer Cases – African Americans – Breast
——————————————————————2013☝27,060 – 33% (2013-2014)
2011☝26,840 – 34% (2011-2012)
2009☝19,540 – 25% (2009-2010)
2007☝19,010 – 27% (2007-2008)
19,240 – 1979-2001 – 29.9% – 2005 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur = detection of below # of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS):
——————————————————————
54,944 (2013)
85% (2003-2012)
88% (2002)

1998-2002 accounted for about 85% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006)
1980-2001 – Incidence rates of DCIS increased more than sevenfold in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
——————————————————————
2013 – breast cancer expected to be most commonly diagnosed cancer in women
——————————————————————BREAST CANCER – 2nd
——————————————————————
2013 – Breast cancer 2nd most common cause of cancer death among African American women, surpassed only by lung cancer (2009-2012)
(2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – Breast cancer is 2nd among cancer deaths in women

2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death

2002 – Breast cancer 2nd leading cause of death
————————————-
Breast cancer most common cancer among African American women

African American Women Most common cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005 – African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————ESTIMATED WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
19% – number of cancer deaths breast cancer in women (2007-2012)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – Death rates from breast cancer steadily decreased in women (2009-2010)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1990s – Death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
breast cancer death rates have declined more slowly in African American women compared to white women, which has resulted in growing disparity (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
gap much smaller among women
racial difference in overall cancer death rates due largely to cancers of breast and colorectum in women

racial disparity has widened for breast cancer in women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women began in (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women approximately equal (2007)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s-2000 – disparity between African American and white Deaths (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————essentially constant – Incidence Trends
——————————————————————
1973-1980 – essentially constant – Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective (2013-2014)
——————————————————————MEDIAN AGE of DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
62 – median age of diagnosis for -white women
——————————————————————
57 – median age of diagnosis for African American women
——————————————————————DIAGNOSIS at LOCAL STAGE
——————————————————————
61% – breast cancers diagnosed among white women at local stage (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
51% (Only about half) – of breast cancers diagnosed among African American women are local stage (2011-2014)
——————————————————————MEDIAN AGE AT TIME OF BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
61 – 2000_-_2004 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis (2007-2008)
61 – 1998_-_2002 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis
——————————————————————
61 – means 50% of women who developed breast cancer were 61 or younger (2007-2008)
50% of women who developed breast cancer were age 61 or younger 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
61 – 50% were older than 61 when diagnosed (2007-2008)

50% were older than age 61 when diagnosed 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
61 – median age for breast cancer diagnosis

African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————2005

White – higher incidence rate than African American women after 40

African American – slightly higher incidence rate before 40

African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
2005-2006 incidence and death rates from breast cancer lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups than white and African American women
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – stable among African American females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1975-1980 essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 + almost 4% per year (2005-2006)
1987-2002 + 0.3% per year (2005-2006)
•Incidence Trends
Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8

+ Source:
DevCan:
Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software, Version 6.3.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
——————————————————————
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL
——————————————————————
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline after 5 years (2009-2010)

77% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
76% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years 2005-2006

======================================Dr. B interview #2
2/7/2013 (10:31)
======================================
Why do you continue to do this ?
Why haven’t you just, given up ?

Because I am right
Why should I stop when I have 100’s of people who are cured

Mhmm

from incurable brain tumors
Ok
We have over 100 people, who are surviving over 5 years, just in the supervised clinical trials with brain tumors
So obviously this works (laughing)
It works in great way
So why should I stop because, some evil people like me to stop ?
It doesn’t make any sense
Evil will lose
So we are right, and we’re going to win
Not, uh, no matter how soon this will be established, but we are going to win

Well, for what it’s worth, and this is something, this is why I wanted to put myself, uh, in front of the camera with you
Obviously I spent 8 months, um, and I’ll try and not get too emotional about it, because that’s unprofessional (laughs)

Yes

but I spent, I spent a long time, looking into this, speaking to people,

Yes

You have very kindly given me access to everything here

Sure

Speak to anyone
Speak to patients
To see medical records, and I have, uh, been amazed by what I, what I’ve seen
I know the statistics are now showing, in the world, that one in two men, will have cancerOne in 3 women, will have cancer

Yes

It’s a, it’s a massive problem

That’s right

And I can see that you’ve genuinely found, uh, a cure for cancer

(?)

You know, it might not work for everyone, but if you’re given the su

Yeah

given the support

Yes

If you’re given, uh, the, uh, I don’t know, just the support basically, and the funds maybe, you could really, do some work, that could change, the whole (nature ?)

Absolutely, and then we can get better, and better
Of course, what you have now is not yet the finished products
We understand that
That’s something we can substantially improve
The response rate can be improved
So, certainly, all of this can be done, but, obviously, we need the resources
We need time to do it, and most of my time is spent with such silly thing like, uh, uh, protecting ourselves against attacks from, the people who are hired to destroy us
Ok
Obviously, there are some companies who are working on the payroll of pharmaceutical business, who are trying to smear us
To spread bad publicity about us
To generate lies about us
These people are criminals, and they are still flourishing
The end for them will come soon, but they are still hurting the other people
because the other people will not take treatment
They will not come, and they will die
Ok
There is no cure for, uh, uh, malignant brain tumors which are inoperable, ok, and we can cure at least, good percent of these people
We presented, our results, at many, many, 1st classscientific congresses, like nuero-oncology congresses, cancer congresses, and it’s important for U.K.
I showed you yesterday, eh, presentation on brainstem glioma in children

Yeah, I have it here

and at the same, uh, Congress, in Edinburgh, we presented also another, eh, eh, paper, on the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme, and the survival on, about 88 patients, in glioblastoma multiforme
So obviously, I make, I make this available to everybody , they would like to listen, come to my presentation
They, they, they know about it, but they don’t want to know about it

Why not ?

(laughs) Because they are working
They are slaves of the big pharmaceutical cartels, ok, and on the payroll of big companies
They hate to see somebody else outside, the slavery, who can do it
I’m free man
I can, ah, do the research because, I am spending my own money for it
I don’t need to beg pharmaceutical companies or government to give me the money
I can do it on my own
They hate it
These people
They hate it because they have slave mentality

Mmm

They arch their back for scraps of money from the table, of some powerful companies, from the government, and they, how can you deal with s, slaves
They don’t want to see something new because this would disrupt, slavery system
Ok
So, current medical education s, system is manufacturing robots
They don’t think on their own, they use only what, the government, or the lawyers of the government, or what the administrators will tell them to do, ok, and if they don’t then they get punished, ok (laughs), and that’s a great system for a ph, pharmaceutical companies, because obviously they can make a lot of money, but it’s not a great system for people who have cancer because they don’t have good results

So you’ve presented at these conferences, and people don’t come up to you afterwards and say:

Mhmm

“I want to come and see what you’re doing
I’ve got to see this for myself”

Ah, well, uh, at each of these Congresses I meet a few doctors who are top specialists in their area who will come to me and say: “Ok, this looks very interesting
We’d like to know more about it
Please send me some, eh, results and a few cases that I can review,” and that’s what you do

Yeah

You send them these cases, and that’s the end of it
I don’t hear from them anymore because they’re afraid to move any

Mmm

further, ok, because they know if they move further, they get punished
They don’t receive grants
They’d be scrutinized by their peers
They’re afraid
Ok (laughs)

Yeah

They work for us

Yeah

they work for us undercover
We have over 100 telephone callers who used to work with us, but they don’t want anybody to know about it because they’d be immediately attacked by the other guys

And the pharmaceutical world as well

Ah, well, the other guys are obviously working for cartels
Uh, they’re on the payroll, a, oh, of big business, which is cancer business, and they don’t want to lose it
Uh, in average, uh, city you might have say about 20 oncologists
One of them may work for us, but he does not no, want to tell anybody that he’s doing this because he would be destroyed by the other guys
These 20 guys will jump on him and he will, won’t have practice anymore
Ok

Yeah

So that’s, uh, the travesty, but, uh, uh, I believe that this is coming to the end
Ultimately, su, more and more doctors will learn what we do

Yeah

and more and more patients will benefit, and the breakthrough will come, but before the breakthrough will come, you have the toughest time

Mmm

because, the opposition is mounting the attacks
Whenever we came up with an announcement that was in the 20th century, we have such and such success, you are furiously attacked by the other guys, who are on payroll, uh, of cartels
Ok (laughs), for no apparent reason
You should be congratulated but we are attacked, because they see we are going to win, and they hate to see this because this means they won’t see money anymore for them, ok, or at least they think they won’t, they won’t have their payroll anymore
—————————————————————Dr. Burzynski on publishing (6:18)
—————————————————————
So why does, why does, ev, everyone hide behind this thing of saying about publishing, because that’s the thing you hear all the time

Well, we cannot publish until the time is right (laughs)

Yeah

If you would like to publish the results of, of a10 year survival, for instance

Mmm

Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival inmalignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports
Eh, many of my publications were rejected by known publi, by known journals like

Why ?

like Lancet, like JAMA,
like New England Journal of Medicine
Why ?
Because they say: “Sorry, but you didn’t receive enough priority to be published“, and if you look in these journals and 1/2 of the, these journals, they are advertising for pharmaceutical companies
Obviously if this would come from a pharmaceutical company, this would be published on the 1st page

Mhmm

Ok
Because this, you don’t have objectivity with these guys
They are on the payrolls of the big cartels, ok, and again and if you try again to send, oh, oh, my manuscript to good journals, if they reject it, we go on Internet and you describe what are these guys
So then everybody will know, because I have very good evidence
that we tried many times to publish in 1st class journals, and we are always rejected

It’s just, persistent

And not, and not because of lack of scientific knowledge
No, because of lack of priority
And who has priority ?
The guys who are paying money for advertising
Ok
So that’s, unfortunately what I think will end sometime
—————————————————————
And we are now preparing publication, on some of these results
We have already published the results on the technique of very difficult variety of breast cancer, which is triple-negative breast cancer
Now we are preparing another article on the technique ofgynecological cancer, which is best series of over 100 patients treated with incurable ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, (?)
So this, has now been prepared for press
Eh, of course, I would like to, give everybody intravenous antineoplastonssee, if they qualified, but, this is limited by the government, because the government limits us to only the patients who are
havebrain tumors, but the other patients, they can be treated through this combination of medication which work on the genesAntineoplastonswork on over 100 different genes
That’s why they give us, very good advantage
There are medications that also work on a number of different genes, and we can combine them together, and use them in the right way
So
that’s what we’ll continue to perfect, and that’s, uh, most of our patients
been treated with just combination of targeted medications
—————————————————————The Future (9:00)
—————————————————————
Why do you continue to do this ?
Because you know the truth, and you want to get the truth out there ?

Absolutely, because we understand we on the right track
Somebody has to do it
I was lucky enough to, find out about it
We have evidence that we are right, and, uh, I don’t think, why should I stop if, people that don’t have sufficient knowledge, who are working, on behalf of some big business, would like to stop us
We are right, and we would like to continue to help people, and, uh, that is what is going to happen
Of course, probably the best reason to make a discovery, and let it stay as it is and ask the other people to publish after I die

Yeah

That’s what happened with the discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus, who was my countryman
Eh, his book was published, sss, when he died, and, uh, for good reason, because of such fears for execution of the people who followed him
like

Hmmm

Galileo, Giordano Bruno, that it took the church, uh, only until recently to agree that, uh, they made the error, in the case
Ok
So if you come up with some breakthrough, you have a choice
Keep it quite until the other guys who understand what you do
or try to use it
In my case, I decided to use it, because I would like to, help people, and now that we can save people, so why should I keep quiet, ok, but certainly if, my work won’t get published because it keeps getting rejected by some of the journals, then we wait until I die, and then we let the other guys publish it
So, ok
======================================
======================================

The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃

In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳

I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊

Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝

I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜

“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:

Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄

Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺

He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“

Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?

no

“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink

That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one

“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,

“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
——————————————————————Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:

” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
——————————————————————Gorski adds:

“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
——————————————————————Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”

One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ

However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why“The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
——————————————————————Gorski gratuitously gabs on:

“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,

“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“

“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
——————————————————————Gorski, BITE ME 🙂

Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?

“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
——————————————————————Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?

“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“

“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
——————————————————————Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
——————————————————————Gorski fumes:

“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
——————————————————————Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
——————————————————————Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:

“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”

“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”

“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
——————————————————————Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
——————————————————————Gorski deposits:

“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”

“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
——————————————————————Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
——————————————————————Gorski rants:

“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”

“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:

“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?

“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?

NO
——————————————————————Gorski blots:

“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”

“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”

“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
——————————————————————Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
——————————————————————Gorski A.D.D.s:

“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
——————————————————————More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
——————————————————————Gorski flails away:

“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”

“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis

I love these reviews 😘

I really do

Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company

I really do

In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)

Maybe that’s part of his problem

“Drunky Blogging”
——————————————————————Gorski pontificates:

“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”

“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
——————————————————————Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
——————————————————————Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog

“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”

“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”

“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“

“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”

“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“

“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“

“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
——————————————————————Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)

After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questionshttp://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
——————————————————————Gorski tangents:

“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”

“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
——————————————————————Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out fasterjust for you, where she advises:

“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
——————————————————————Gorski stupefies:

“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”

“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
——————————————————————Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
——————————————————————12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”

“Mhmm”

Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”

“Yeah”

Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
——————————————————————Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?

An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski

(No wonder you left that out !)
——————————————————————Gorski ejects:

“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“

“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“

“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“

“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?

“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“

“Did they draw blood cultures?”

“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”

“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
——————————————————————Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino

Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic

Oh, wait

You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
——————————————————————Gorski at least gets one thing correct:

“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
——————————————————————1/15/2012 Monday Day 36antibiotics 1st day
——————————————————————1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37antibiotics 2nd day
——————————————————————1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38antibiotics been on 3 days
——————————————————————Gorski wonders:

“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
——————————————————————Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
——————————————————————12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
——————————————————————12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stopoff ANPabsolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
——————————————————————12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17back on ANPtemp 102 – off ANPtemp down / up
——————————————————————12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18on ANP much smaller doseexhausted – close to breaking / cracking
——————————————————————12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19hospital – E.R.
——————————————————————12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20last week up & downoff on off on offfever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
——————————————————————12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
——————————————————————1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37temp 102+ Monday night
——————————————————————1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38throat infectiontemp 101.8 – fever – off ANPantibiotics been on 3 days
——————————————————————1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
——————————————————————1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen102.5 – off ANPyesterday afternoon rash
——————————————————————Gorski ponders:

“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
——————————————————————Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
——————————————————————1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinicfeel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shakyNurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before[22:34]
——————————————————————Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?

“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
——————————————————————Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?

“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
——————————————————————12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21temp 102 – fever in middle of nightDr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down[21:53]
——————————————————————Gorski blunders along:

“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
——————————————————————1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified[28:35]
——————————————————————Gorski bumbles onward:

“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”

“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”

“Guess”

“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
——————————————————————Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?

“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“

“Sadly, the answer is:”

“Not necessarily”

“It might have”

“It might not have”

“Why do I say this?”

“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
——————————————————————Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
——————————————————————Gorski

“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
——————————————————————Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:

High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“

High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy

All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age

Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
——————————————————————Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:

These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy

Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
——————————————————————Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:

Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
——————————————————————Gorski claims:

“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
——————————————————————Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
——————————————————————Gorski suspects:

“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
——————————————————————Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”

Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”

It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable

As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “

The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had

Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not

Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims

Gorski claims:

“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”

But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”

Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless

Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
——————————————————————GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
——————————————————————GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
——————————————————————GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
——————————————————————GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
——————————————————————GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
——————————————————————GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,